As I said: the Democratic party leadership is not liberalism. They don't dictate to us what to believe.

So the DNC charter is just a few suggestions?

Quote

If the party starts moving away from us, we either take it back or we make a better party.

That has no basis in reality. Please explain since Reagan where it was taken back and made better? So ya got hammered with Carter, then you took it back and came up with... Mondale? What about Dukakis? Was that when the party was moving away? Or Al Gore, who couldn't carry his own state or successfully ride the coattails of a popular presidency? Or Kerry?

Quote

Contrast that with conservativism, which will always be tied to the Republican party, even if it has to become a sidelined regional party (as we are seeing right now).

Parties have always been biased regionally. And sidelined? Granted, Obama may sure as heck win the election, but right now we're looking at even numbers nationally.

Quote

Because liberals don't engage in this daddy/hero worship conservatives do.

What color is the sky in your world? JFK? Hell even Bill Clinton. Not to mention Obama, Obama, Obama.

What I really meant is more liberal court than we have now (as replacing O'Conner with Alito is most certainly a shift towards the conservative side).

O'Connor was a life-long conservative. So how does that somehow support your point? Unless you mean that Alito is more likely to side with made up bullshit justifications than O'Connor, in which you would be correct.

Quote

The more important point I was trying to make is that the Bush v. Gore case was decided by jurists regarded as liberals (Breyer and Souter) and on the court siding "against" Gore in multiple issues of the case. It wasn't a decision by a conservative junta by any stretch.

Of course it was. But rather than view the conservative decision as reflecting on how truly liberal those people actually were, you just want to "share the blame", whether it's true or not. And you got called on it.

The "Liberal" Supreme Court supports conservatives, the "Liberal" media supports conservatives, the "Liberal" Congress is responsible for Bush's war in Iraq, etc. See? Conservatives can do no wrong, even when they do.

Plenty of republicans have embraced gun control. I don't need to pull out Giuliani or Romney - the patron saint of right-wing lunacy, President Reagan, signed the Mulford Act as governor of California and supported the Brady Bill (gee - I wonder why.) The less-awful iteration of a President Bush signed the assault weapons import ban in 1989.

Plenty of republicans have embraced gun control. I don't need to pull out Giuliani or Romney - the patron saint of right-wing lunacy, President Reagan, signed the Mulford Act as governor of California and supported the Brady Bill (gee - I wonder why.) The less-awful iteration of a President Bush signed the assault weapons import ban in 1989.

Plenty of republicans have embraced gun control. I don't need to pull out Giuliani or Romney - the patron saint of right-wing lunacy, President Reagan, signed the Mulford Act as governor of California and supported the Brady Bill (gee - I wonder why.) The less-awful iteration of a President Bush signed the assault weapons import ban in 1989.

Perhaps I should have said "as a party platform"

That would've been more accurate - but really, if your leadership doesn't adhere to the party platform, then all the platform is doing is placating voters for whom words speak louder than actions. Nixon was in favor of tighter gun control. Reagan acted in favor of tighter gun control (at least to prevent black people from carrying weapons). Bush instituted tighter gun control. Perhaps you should be voting for a "libertarian" candidate. I wonder how much your views on guns dovetail with those of Lyndon LaRouche.

As I said: the Democratic party leadership is not liberalism. They don't dictate to us what to believe.

So the DNC charter is just a few suggestions?

I don't know about anyone else, but when I vote for a candidate, I'm not voting for the DNC charter. Nice straw man, though.

Quote

Quote

If the party starts moving away from us, we either take it back or we make a better party.

That has no basis in reality. Please explain since Reagan where it was taken back and made better? So ya got hammered with Carter, then you took it back and came up with... Mondale? What about Dukakis? Was that when the party was moving away? Or Al Gore, who couldn't carry his own state or successfully ride the coattails of a popular presidency? Or Kerry?

Wow, kudos on using ancient examples, gramps. I mean, it's not like new voters entered the party since 1970

BTW, Al Gore won the popular vote, and despite the vote rigging, Kerry STILL almost won. So much for the lie you conservatives keep trying to push about no popular support. BTW, GWB didn't win Connecticut, so HE didnt carry his home state, either.

Quote

Quote

Contrast that with conservativism, which will always be tied to the Republican party, even if it has to become a sidelined regional party (as we are seeing right now).

Parties have always been biased regionally. And sidelined? Granted, Obama may sure as heck win the election, but right now we're looking at even numbers nationally.

Quote

Because liberals don't engage in this daddy/hero worship conservatives do.

What color is the sky in your world? JFK? Hell even Bill Clinton. Not to mention Obama, Obama, Obama.

LOL, whatever you say, pal. That's not "daddy worship". There were always a lot of people who had issues with policies put forth by ANY of those people. Contrast that with Daddy Bush or Daddy Reagan, where it's your duty as a Republickin' to support every utterance and stray thought of Daddy.

Daddy wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years? Stay the Course!Daddy doesn't like Stem Cells? They are evil!Daddy says poor children shouldn't have health care? God must hate them!

No one in their right mind considers Connecticut Bush's home state, just as much as no one considers Washington, DC to be Al Gore's home city.

Why not? It makes as much sense as claiming that Gore winning his home state in a presidential election is somehow relevant.

But hey, good job on your "fair and balanced" point of view. You go girl!

Although the real problem here is that nobody wants to remind everyone that GWB is a fake cowboy from Connecticut who was a male cheerleader from Yale. He's the Crawford Kid, dammit! Somebody get that man a flightsuit!

I don't know about anyone else, but when I vote for a candidate, I'm not voting for the DNC charter. Nice straw man, though.

I don't believe you're quite aware of what a straw man actually is. Nevertheless, the absolute best indicator of how a candidate will perform, which way he will vote on issues, is his party affiliation. They are democrats and republicans for a reason. If you are going to actually make an attempt at arguing that republicans dictate to their constituents what to believe while democrats don't, provide some evidence, and not just a link to google. Both parties have guidelines and platforms from which their candidates almost never differ.

Quote

Wow, kudos on using ancient examples, gramps. I mean, it's not like new voters entered the party since 1970

...so where is an example of what you said? That if the democratic party goes astray you democrats reign it in and make it better? Is it the one democratic president we've had since video games became a viable form of entertainment?

Quote

BTW, Al Gore won the popular vote

And yet the popular vote is not how the presidency is won in the United States. He lost the election even though he was a vice president in a very popular presidency. He lost his home state. You cannot say he was a strong candidate.

Quote

and despite the vote rigging, Kerry STILL almost won.

Horseshoes and hand grenades. He lost to an unpopular president and ran a mess of a campaign. Not a strong candidate.

Quote

BTW, GWB didn't win Connecticut, so HE didnt carry his home state, either.

Again, what color is the sky in this world of yours. You do realize he was the governor of Texas do you not?

No one in their right mind considers Connecticut Bush's home state, just as much as no one considers Washington, DC to be Al Gore's home city.

Why not? It makes as much sense as claiming that Gore winning his home state in a presidential election is somehow relevant.

But hey, good job on your "fair and balanced" point of view. You go girl!

Although the real problem here is that nobody wants to remind everyone that GWB is a fake cowboy from Connecticut who was a male cheerleader from Yale. He's the Crawford Kid, dammit! Somebody get that man a flightsuit!

My God, are you dense. You totally missed the point I was trying to make.

No one in their right mind considers Connecticut Bush's home state, just as much as no one considers Washington, DC to be Al Gore's home city.

Why not? It makes as much sense as claiming that Gore winning his home state in a presidential election is somehow relevant.

But hey, good job on your "fair and balanced" point of view. You go girl!

Although the real problem here is that nobody wants to remind everyone that GWB is a fake cowboy from Connecticut who was a male cheerleader from Yale. He's the Crawford Kid, dammit! Somebody get that man a flightsuit!

My God, are you dense. You totally missed the point I was trying to make.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I vote for a candidate, I'm not voting for the DNC charter. Nice straw man, though.

I don't believe you're quite aware of what a straw man actually is.

Well why don't you explain it to all of us? I'm sure we can all benefit from your six-post illumination.

Quote

If you are going to actually make an attempt at arguing that republicans dictate to their constituents what to believe while democrats don't, provide some evidence, and not just a link to google.

No.

Quote

Both parties have guidelines and platforms from which their candidates almost never differ.

You mean like gun control? Oh wait, that's a bad example.You must mean lowering government spending. Oh... hmm... no, the first post in this thread kind of throws the conservative canard out the window.How about strength of foreign policy? Shit, that doesn't work, since Republican foreign policy has always been horrible for America.

Oh, I have it! Democrats support civil rights, and Republicans oppose them! Democrats support health care reform, and Republicans oppose them! Democrats are against cancer, and Republicans are for it!

The Republican platform is... opposition to anything the Democrats are for!

NOW it all makes sense!

Quote

Quote

Wow, kudos on using ancient examples, gramps. I mean, it's not like new voters entered the party since 1970

...so where is an example of what you said? That if the democratic party goes astray you democrats reign it in and make it better? Is it the one democratic president we've had since video games became a viable form of entertainment?

There is no example, since the Democratic party hasn't been the one which has gone astray. But as an example of the other side of what I was saying... Republicans are still "standing by their man". Most people who still consider themselves Republicans likewise believe GWB has been a very successful president. Not just good... but VERY successful.

Quote

Quote

BTW, Al Gore won the popular vote

And yet the popular vote is not how the presidency is won in the United States. He lost the election even though he was a vice president in a very popular presidency. He lost his home state. You cannot say he was a strong candidate.

Of course I can say it. In fact, I did! Al Gore received MORE votes for than against. How is that NOT a strong candidate?

BTW, Gore didn't lose the election. His opponent was appointed by the "liberal" Supreme Court.

Quote

Quote

and despite the vote rigging, Kerry STILL almost won.

Horseshoes and hand grenades. He lost to an unpopular president and ran a mess of a campaign. Not a strong candidate.

Likewise, Kerry also came very close to beating Bush, who at the time was viewed as unbeatable.

Your revisionist history doesn't change that fact, and your hyper-partisan claim that Gore and Kerry were weak candidates holds no water. By your very own logic, that means GWB was a weak candidate. Twice!

Now if you actually do believe GWB was a weak candidate, I'll definitely agree, which is why he had to resort to vote rigging in order to win.

Quote

Quote

BTW, GWB didn't win Connecticut, so HE didnt carry his home state, either.

Again, what color is the sky in this world of yours. You do realize he was the governor of Texas do you not?

If you are going to actually make an attempt at arguing that republicans dictate to their constituents what to believe while democrats don't, provide some evidence, and not just a link to google.

No.

If you can't back up your own arguments, don't expect to be taken seriously... though I guess you're probably pretty much used to that already.

Quote

Quote

...so where is an example of what you said? That if the democratic party goes astray you democrats reign it in and make it better?

There is no example

So you make the argument that if the democratic party goes astray then democrats reel it back in and make it better, but you have no evidence and not even a single example to prove it? K, glad we could have that discussion.

Quote

Was he born in Texas?

Wow. Really? You are unable to grasp the concept of home? I live in a house. I was not born in my house. And yet, this house is my home.

Just wow. Count me in as another who will just skip your posts from now on dude. Enjoy the color of the sky in your world .

No one in their right mind considers Connecticut Bush's home state, just as much as no one considers Washington, DC to be Al Gore's home city.

Why not? It makes as much sense as claiming that Gore winning his home state in a presidential election is somehow relevant.

But hey, good job on your "fair and balanced" point of view. You go girl!

Although the real problem here is that nobody wants to remind everyone that GWB is a fake cowboy from Connecticut who was a male cheerleader from Yale. He's the Crawford Kid, dammit! Somebody get that man a flightsuit!

My God, are you dense. You totally missed the point I was trying to make.

Likewise, Kerry also came very close to beating Bush, who at the time was viewed as unbeatable.

??? What kind of alternate universe do you live in?

Polling was even throughout the contest in 2004. It was widely thought among experts that Bush would fail to be reelected due to the unpopular war in Iraq -- at the time the violence was much worse than it is post-surge. I never once read where Bush was ever, EVER thought to be unbeatable.

If you are going to actually make an attempt at arguing that republicans dictate to their constituents what to believe while democrats don't, provide some evidence, and not just a link to google.

No.

If you can't back up your own arguments, don't expect to be taken seriously... though I guess you're probably pretty much used to that already.

Well seeing how you've been here all of two days, I'm sure you really know a lot about me. Interesting...

Also, I'm not your dancing monkey. I'm not going to whip up something because you demand it, especially when you ask for something stupid. I don't need a spreadsheet to demonstrate that Republicans believe what their leaders believe, all I need is current events. Republicans hated Clinton, they cried and whined about Kosovo, and yet they love flightsuit boy and say anyone who disagrees with the president is a traitor. And they love Iraq and nation building, despite cheering in 1999 when GWB used "nation building" as a swear word.

See, they just don't know what to believe until Daddy tells them. Once Daddy starts nation building, they become champions for nation building. But when a Democrat proposes something... and succeeds... they fight him every step of the way.

Quote

Quote

...so where is an example of what you said? That if the democratic party goes astray you democrats reign it in and make it better?

There is no example

So you make the argument that if the democratic party goes astray then democrats reel it back in and make it better, but you have no evidence and not even a single example to prove it? K, glad we could have that discussion.[/quote]

Wow, nice pulling stuff out of context! I see you are a true conservative... but it really doesn't work too well when someone can scroll up and read what was actually written.

Since you are asking for an example of something which hasn't happened, I'll also provide a report of dragons flying out of somebody's ass and attacking the moon.

But on a smaller level, how about that time the Democratic Party kicked out Joe Lieberman? We clean our messes. But even criminal indictment isn't enough to get a Republican out of the party or out of office. And why bother? They are the culture of corruption, after all.

Quote

Quote

Was he born in Texas?

Wow. Really? You are unable to grasp the concept of home? I live in a house. I was not born in my house. And yet, this house is my home.

Just wow. Count me in as another who will just skip your posts from now on dude. Enjoy the color of the sky in your world .

I honestly dont care about that point, I just like busting people's balls when they bring up something stupid like Al Gore not winning a state which is very Republican. It's a truly stupid thing to say, so the best alternative is to counter with an equally stupid claim.

But hey, I'm happy you will skip my posts. I'll hold you to that promise.

No one in their right mind considers Connecticut Bush's home state, just as much as no one considers Washington, DC to be Al Gore's home city.

Why not? It makes as much sense as claiming that Gore winning his home state in a presidential election is somehow relevant.

But hey, good job on your "fair and balanced" point of view. You go girl!

Although the real problem here is that nobody wants to remind everyone that GWB is a fake cowboy from Connecticut who was a male cheerleader from Yale. He's the Crawford Kid, dammit! Somebody get that man a flightsuit!

My God, are you dense. You totally missed the point I was trying to make.

No one in their right mind considers Connecticut Bush's home state, just as much as no one considers Washington, DC to be Al Gore's home city.

Why not? It makes as much sense as claiming that Gore winning his home state in a presidential election is somehow relevant.

But hey, good job on your "fair and balanced" point of view. You go girl!

Although the real problem here is that nobody wants to remind everyone that GWB is a fake cowboy from Connecticut who was a male cheerleader from Yale. He's the Crawford Kid, dammit! Somebody get that man a flightsuit!

My God, are you dense. You totally missed the point I was trying to make.

You just said the Democratic "movement" (WTF is the Democratic movement anyway? I think I had one of those after the last time I had bad Mexican food) always champions social justice and civil rights.

Apparently always doesn't include gays in the military.

Not to defend unbreakable, because I really don't want to, but "don't ask, don't tell", while not allowing all gays to serve openly in the military, was a step in that direction.

Sometimes, the wins are big victories, and sometimes, they're compromises that take a step towards that victory. That's the nature of politics, sometimes you have to be pragmatic. Otherwise Feminists would be fighting for nothing short of the equal rights amendment in a world where women still didn't have the right to vote.

Well seeing how you've been here all of two days, I'm sure you really know a lot about me. Interesting...

What's that got to do with anything? I know very little about you, nor do I care. What I do know is that in this thread you've made arguments that you've been completely incapable of backing up with any evidence, examples, or even any logic. Neither the number of my posts nor the time I've spent on this forum have anything to do with your inability to create a coherent thought.

Quote

But hey, I'm happy you will skip my posts. I'll hold you to that promise.

Eh as I just showed sometimes I'll fall off the wagon, but I'll try to hop right back on and keep on quitting you.

Thank you for proving your standards for what I have to do are far and away higher than those you hold yourself to. It's comforting to know you expect much more out of me than you do out of yourself.

If you're going to be an arrogrant prick and not provide sources and reasoning for what you say, why should I? Educate yourself.

Or maybe you are just angry that I'm no longer playing your "attack the source" game anymore? I post a link, you attack the author, then his motivation, then where he works. And then me, for good measure.

But if I tell you the info is out there (which it is), then the burden is on you to find this mystical magical source you would accept as credible.

So don't get all pissy because I'm not playing your game anymore. You'll just have to find another intellectually dishonest strategy to use. Or find someone else to play with.

Well seeing how you've been here all of two days, I'm sure you really know a lot about me. Interesting...

What's that got to do with anything? I know very little about you, nor do I care. What I do know is that in this thread you've made arguments that you've been completely incapable of backing up with any evidence, examples, or even any logic. Neither the number of my posts nor the time I've spent on this forum have anything to do with your inability to create a coherent thought.

Quote

But hey, I'm happy you will skip my posts. I'll hold you to that promise.

Eh as I just showed sometimes I'll fall off the wagon, but I'll try to hop right back on and keep on quitting you.

If we can't trust you to do what you say... why should your words have any credibility?

Thank you for proving your standards for what I have to do are far and away higher than those you hold yourself to. It's comforting to know you expect much more out of me than you do out of yourself.

If you're going to be an arrogrant prick and not provide sources and reasoning for what you say, why should I? Educate yourself.

Or maybe you are just angry that I'm no longer playing your "attack the source" game anymore? I post a link, you attack the author, then his motivation, then where he works. And then me, for good measure.

But if I tell you the info is out there (which it is), then the burden is on you to find this mystical magical source you would accept as credible.

So don't get all pissy because I'm not playing your game anymore. You'll just have to find another intellectually dishonest strategy to use. Or find someone else to play with.

Nice to see you can't handle your own attitude and debating style given back to you.

Nice to see you can't handle your own attitude and debating style given back to you.

LOL, that's hilarious!

No, I don't attack the source, unless someone is pulling from rushlimbaugh.com or newmax or some other source obviously unconcerned with what the truth is. Feel free to point out when I've done that, however, even though we both know it's impossible to do so.

Sometimes, the wins are big victories, and sometimes, they're compromises that take a step towards that victory. That's the nature of politics, sometimes you have to be pragmatic. Otherwise Feminists would be fighting for nothing short of the equal rights amendment in a world where women still didn't have the right to vote.

Yeah, I really got attacked by the far-righters from GoneGold about 9-10 years ago when I started questioning that one. It wasn't pretty.

No you didn't. You got attacked by reasonable people for two reasons:

1) You didn't understand how employee stock options worked, and you made the mistake of suggesting that Bill Gates was intentionally throwing money away so that he could save a fraction of that money on taxes.

2) You were suggesting that it wasn't fair to treat capital gains differently than income tax, in the general sense. At no point in time did you make the point that we should shut down a loophole that affords a tax shelter to the DNC money men.

Yeah, I really got attacked by the far-righters from GoneGold about 9-10 years ago when I started questioning that one. It wasn't pretty.

No you didn't. You got attacked by reasonable people for two reasons:

1) You didn't understand how employee stock options worked, and you made the mistake of suggesting that Bill Gates was intentionally throwing money away so that he could save a fraction of that money on taxes.

2) You were suggesting that it wasn't fair to treat capital gains differently than income tax, in the general sense. At no point in time did you make the point that we should shut down a loophole that affords a tax shelter to the DNC money men.

I was just informed. My apologies for the delay. I don't even know why I came in here today. I was reading along, with no urge to post until I saw him try to allege that he was trying to make an actual point in the thread he referenced. If I didn't have that entire thread at my fingertips, ready to dazzle him with his own stupidity, I wouldn't have responded at all.

That probably reflects poorly on me, but there you have it. Speaking of which - I was assured several times through the tony72/Tyler Durden/Unbreakable wars that it was ME that was causing him to behave that way. What (or who) was his excuse here?

That probably reflects poorly on me, but there you have it. Speaking of which - I was assured several times through the tony72/Tyler Durden/Unbreakable wars that it was ME that was causing him to behave that way. What (or who) was his excuse here?

Just to be clear, he isn't banned from the site or forums, just this sub-forum. He demonstrated several times that he was incapable of the adult behavior required to carry on a civil discussion in this forum. The rest was inevitable. That said, I don't want to turn this into a bash thread - it doesn't serve any good beyond spreading venom where none is needed. He wants to move on.